For the life of me, I have to wonder if we detested atheists could ever get an apology from the apologists at Triablogue. Here's a chance to find out.

Over on the Triablogue site, for whatever reason, they rose to the defense of defamation-suit-potential-extraordinaire FrankWalton. I won't link to his site, and I recommend that everyone else refrains from doing so as well, but suffice it to say that those familiar with his antics probably spend an equal amount of time wondering what drugs his parents used during his gestation, wondering what the label "Christian" means to Frank, and regurgitating their lunch in response to his posts.

Let me also say that I have never in my entire life threatened anyone with a lawsuit before Frank Walton. And, I don't intend to keep up the habit. He's "special" and as such, deserves "special" treatment. Reginald Finley is seriously considering trying a libel case against him, and for the use of his entire radio show by Gene Cook without permission, but we'll see if it works out. I am hoping so. Someone needs to place a face with the stink. Walton has been allowed to ferment in the dark for too long, and sunlight is a good disinfectant.

After my initial response to this satirical article written by Steve about how really I'm just an ass, and Frank isn't so bad, I thought I could handle silently watching as the comments section filled with pejoratives and all the Christ's-blood-drenched love they could muster. Indeed, I even thought I could hold my tongue after Steve pretended I hadn't linked to authorities:

[regarding copyright protection] Hard to tell, but it must be in there somewhere since Danny says it’s so

Well, the fact that I linked to two copyright experts, Ivan Hoffman, and the law firm Oppedahl & Larson, who also "say so", eluded Steve. Steve stumbled on:

And I’m sure I don’t have to remind you all that when you’re quoting the average atheist, nothing could be more defamatory to his personal character than to accurately reproduce his very own words.

Well, you'll note that Steve didn't bother to follow his own assertion, nor to link to my article on the subject. After my leaving my first response, including much of what I'm writing here, Steve didn't have much to say.

...That is, until someone left this hilarious comment:

Did you know that the photo in your profile is of a gay guy?

Steve immediately found the courage to tackle this assertion [that Cary Grant was gay] by quoting at length from carygrant.net, which bases its defense of Cary's heterosexuality on, among other things, the logic that, had Grant indeed been gay, he wouldn't have had so many wives...

Yeah, pretty solid reasoning, I know. Unfortunately for Steve, it appears that Randolph Scott, one of Cary's alleged lovers, confided in George Cukor that he did, indeed, have a romantic relationship with Grant, the first person to ever use the phrase "gay" on film, ad-libbing it in (Bringing Up Baby, 1938). But hey, we're godless, immoral heathens, so it's okay to be gay, it's okay to like Cary Grant, it's even okay to be like Cary Grant [however that was], to be who you are. Hey, we came out of the closet of disbelief, so we can sympathize with anyone who may be torn over such issues...not that I'm saying Steve is, I'm saying anyone.

I'm a key figure in a shadow government conclave that seeks to conceal the truth about the existence of extraterrestrials. Just kidding. I'm a 22-year-old student who is in love with Jesus Christ.

Berny, just gotta say, I'm up in Gainesville, only about five hours away from you down in Miami. If you ever drive up I-75, stop by the Chemistry Lab Building at UF, go up to the fourth floor, room 409, and we can chat about how "in love" you are with Jeebus, how much of a joke I am, and how much of a pansy. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting. And no, this isn't threatening, I am not implying bodily harm, I am implying that you likely aren't as courageous, and I'm likely not as pansified, in person.

Good ol' American machismo? Perhaps, but at least I'm letting anyone and everyone know where they can find this ol' joke of a pansy, to see if, in person, they feel the same way after making my acquaintance -- that I'm but a joke and a pansy, and, more importantly, if they feel emboldened enough to tell me. Hell, there's nothing like a pixelated screen to give us fightin' words, now is there? Speaking of which, Frank Walton is rather terrified at the prospect of someone finding out where he can be located...all the while calling me "coward". Does that break your irony meter, too?

Daniel Morgan reminds me of the ghastly teenagers I used to teach. Old man, if you can't express yourself without swearing, say nothinbg at all. You ought to have your mouth washed out with soapy water!

That's right, pap! And those damned whipper-snappers better not get on your lawn again, or you'll call the paddy-wagon on the laddies, eh?

Grandpa's legal advice?

Oh, and Mr. Morgan, you lose your control over letters when you send them to someone else.

Interesting. So, when you send a letter out in your mailbox, do I get to go intercept it? Hell, you sent it out. When I received a copy of Dennett's Breaking the Spell, I then had the full authority to reproduce it, since it had been "sent" to me? Obviously, I do indeed have the "control", in the physical sense, of what I choose to do with this physical copy, just as others do with any work protected by copyright. But, what the law permits me us to do is pretty clear.

Man, how did those Enron execs miss the "E-mails are copyrighted and cannot be divulged to third parties" legal tactic?

Well, I suppose, CalvinDude, that you fail to see the technical difference between reproducing a copyrighted work and the right to privacy in a criminal case. By the way, do you think, CD, that the government may, just maybe, have had to get a warrant to get those emails? Perhaps you should contact the two law offices I cited above to correct them, since you now, in addition to your abundant knowledge of the most recondite theological topics, have apparently garnered a J.D. CD goes on:

But in any case, if we want to talk about "libel" that's not by implication, I think Morgan already engaged in that when he said (see above): "...but I suppose critiquing a lawyer is a little more difficult, since none of you know copyright law from your anal sphincter, eh?" Thus Morgan is not implying but explicitly stating that "none of you" (being the people at Triablogue, since Morgan started with the kind address of "Trilly-boogers:") are intelligent enough to tell the difference between copyright law and their anal sphincter.

But don't worry, Morgan. I doubt that any of the Triabloguers consider that libel any more than anyone on Earth (besides you) considers what Walton said to be libel.

Hmmm...think that way, and you'd never graduate from law school, my friend. Any statement preceded by "but I suppose..." and ends in a "?" is clearly both a question and a statement of opinion, which is always defended from libel by free speech in America. Frank's statement contained no such clause. Statements of fact are the only possible contenders for libelous standing. It's okay, you probably specialize in divine law, right?

Well, I read all this, and still did okay holding my tongue, until Gene Bridges wrote:

No blogger is required to open his blog to comments. FYI, Detective, Mr. Morgan does not allow Christians to leave comments on his blog, so what you want Mr. Walton to do, your own Mr. Morgan refuses. He allows those who agree with him to post comments, but not those who disagree. He considers this evangelism.

Well, hot damn, that's news to me! Finally, the pressure had begun to mount, and my ears were whistling...I broke, and responded:

That's a lie. And a rather easily demonstrated one. Just go to my blog and read any of the 48 Haloscan comments on the post about Frank.

Daniel "the coward" Morgan: That's a lie. And a rather easily demonstrated one.

Frank Walton: LOL, Now that's a lie. And even more demonstrably illustrated. Mr. Bridges is not talking about your personal blog, Danny. He's talking about the "outofchristianity" blog. You know the blog where you didn't allow me to make my comment? You yourself told me: [he cherrypicks quotes from these emails]

Get it, now? Now why don't you make the phase to these new blogs I have on you.

Well, thanks, but no thanks. Your desperation to pull people to your blog doesn't faze me though. So, since I was on a roll, I wrote up the following:

All,

Perhaps Gene's use of "on his blog" makes me out to be the liar, and not Gene?

If Gene meant "on the outofchristianity blog", which is not mine, but Aaron Rossetti's, then he should clarify his point.

And perhaps he'll want to retract and replace the name "Aaron" for "Mr. Morgan", since I don't set the moderation policy at Aaron's site.

While I am sure Gene needs defending, I would think he doesn't need it from the likes of Frank W. No, I won't be "phasing" over to his blog, and as Frank may or may not have noted, I haven't visited it today, and don't intend to ever deign myself to do so again...it's like a mental quicksand pit which sucks the IQ from your head.

Perhaps Frank's reading comprehension, and Gene's presumption on the matter, proved as shallow as could be predicted, in that their equivocation of the outofchristianity blog as my blog, when it was clearly and explicitly stated to the contrary, was not understood?

Aaron made it clear that he does not want any attempts at evangelism within his forum. It is more "support group" than "invite to apologists"... as if you and yours don't have enough places to graze for that...Aaron does not consider himself a "debater" nor his blog a "debate forum" and thus your puerile attempts at getting him into a debate with Gene Cook are silly. Aren't there enough unbelievers out there for you to waste your miserable life arguing with?

Was this so hard for you to understand, Frank? Gene? It's Aaron's site, his policy, his decision.

My own comment policy is simple: wide open. Gratuitous insults and threats will of course run out my patience eventually, but so long as the person has something of substance to say, I will leave it alone.

Therefore, yes, Gene told an untruth. Perhaps he was mistaken, but he still told a lie. That is not my policy, and that is not my site. He said both were. If he just apologizes and retracts, then he can save face. Obviously, Frank not only lost his long ago, he keeps it private while calling others cowards. It breaks even my high-tech irony meter.

Yes, I helped Aaron set up the HTML for his site, and submitted my own testimonial/deconversion account. I did not set his policy on moderation. I am one of three moderators. I follow Aaron's policy, I am not the author of it.

The same logic in holding me accountable for his policy is a demonstration of the mental prowess that keeps you all within the Christian belief system.

Thus, Frank Walton is still the same imbecile, and Gene's presumption was still wrong, should he even have made it "in good faith".

It's still a lie, even if one based on a mistaken presumption rather than of knowing malice. Gene should not have referred to "Mr. Morgan...on his blog...Mr. Morgan refuses" when he should have referred to "Aaron...on outofchristianity.blogspot.com...Aaron refuses policy".

Ergo, the mistakes are his, yet, for whatever reason, here I am defending myself from a lie and an imbecile who tries to make it right. I can forgive Gene's mistaken presumption, but the malicious sort of ignorance Frank displays is intolerable--he was already told this...and yet he defends a lie. And, he won't show his face on his site, nor divulge his location, while I have done both, and he calls me a coward. Oh, the irony...

Poor b-----d.

Now, let's see if I [mean old atheist, immoral, litigious!] will get an apology from Gene [humble, apologist, Christian]. Let's also see if the Trilly-boogers continue to make associations and rush to the aid of the likes of Frank Walton. This is getting funnier by the moment.